13897407:mulchbrain said:
I do see that it would be difficult to change the laws. And I also understand its part of the culture. Most people wouldn't be wanting to make guns illegal and therefore making owners criminals would they ? Just restrict them.
I would agree that guns are not the whole problem. What about education? Is there a gun licensing code and test you have to take and pass before owning a gun? And background testing before owning a gun?
How is banning types of guns a slippery slope? Restricting the magazine sizes allowed on guns and Stopping ownership on concealable weapons without more training and heavier licensing seems like a good start. Isn't there some restrictions now on what type on guns you can own already? eg fully automatic?
I just read baack through what I wrote . It kind of sounds like im going after your points but im not im just trying to understand
You asked the questions in a reasonable, non-attacking manner. At present, purchasing a firearm is extremely simple. Any person, age 18+ can walk into a store and purchase a firearm. Your federal NICS check happens, which is run by the FBI. This is all done on the computer and takes only a few minutes. It checks to make certain you are not a criminal. Other than that, pay your money and you walk out with a firearm.
The firearms that are restricted are full-auto and handguns, for the most part (there are other special firearms, but these are the most common). Handguns vary state by state. In many, even most states, one must take a course, complete a detailed background check, get fingerprinted, and petition the court to be allowed to own a handgun.
The slippy slope with banning certain firearms is that it is very, very difficult to define a certain type of gun. For example, an AR is not like banning an automatic firearm. An AR is a modular-style gun, that can be put together out of parts by pretty much anyone. Would we ban all of the parts? Of course not. Then what do we ban? Semi-autos? That seems like a terrible idea, and a significant restriction upon my rights.
In regard to banning high-capacity magazines, this has already happened in some places. In the state in which I reside, magazines larger than 10-rounds are banned. The downside is that this created criminals out of many, many people. Just prior to the ban going through, folks purchased thousands upon thousands of these higher-capacity magazines. I would go so far as to say that the majority of gun owners I know, all of who are very responsible, law-abiding folks, have illegal high-capacity magazines.
So far, and I certainly hope forever, the mass-shootings have been carried out very ineffectively. Schools, concerts, and other large gatherings of unarmed folks are referred to as "soft targets." These are places where shooters can cause a tremendous amount of damage without much worry of return fire or resistance. The AR has been the weapon of choice, but this is likely simply due to its prevalence in video games and movies. In reality, a shotgun with buckshot would be a far more effective weapon for close-quarters shooting, and would cause significantly more damage. If a shooter does come along who realizes this, then do we ban shotguns?
Banning is not the answer. Education, more thorough background checks, restrictions on who can own a firearm, and likely armed guards and metal detectors in schools is more of a step in the right direction. I personally believe that firearm ownership is a right, a Constitutionally guaranteed right. However, rights go away when one breaks the law. Anyone who has been convicted of domestic abuse should never, ever be allowed to own a firearm. With stricter laws regarding firearm ownership, and increased precautions surrounding "soft targets," I think we will see a difference. However, it is impossible to tell how effective these things would be. We only see the shootings that do happen. We do not have any idea of shootings that are prevented. Quantifying such things is impossible.
